Search results

Not moving the goalposts at all. Not sure how you get that? 1st, you are not humble enough to admit Scripture does not state what Ananias qualifications were to straighten out Saul. 2nd, you rely on your intellect to ascribe you worldview - that he had qualifications listed - onto the...

ROFLMAO. It is no more complicated than Jesus is not God. Only the father is god. That’s what the Bible says. Why is that not good enough for you?

As are mine. I felt prompted throughout the day yesterday before I made my 2 part post.

What Biblical qualifications are needed to correct someone? I don’t recall Ananias‘ qualifications being listed before he straightened out Saul’s sorry butt.

Yes but God is the gardener. Jesus is the son not the father. (Isaiah was not referring to the Messiah when he said, not what a man IS, but what a man will be called.) Jesus is not referred to as the father once in the NT. So, I think you know Jesus is not actually the father.

Posts like this have got me thinking about starting a thread, what the NWT Bible has correct? I'm not too familair with the JW translation but it is clear they got Jehovah correct. I am grateful to @Aunty Jane about many things in her posting on these boards. One is teaching me that God's name...

Nothing more than you were before you were born. What were you before you were born? It's telling the trinitarian ran out of arguments. So, he has to invoke all kinds of irrelevant Scripture, hoping something sticks. This thread is about Col 1:16. There really is no 'ultimate' answer to why...

dude! We are not talking about expression or manifestation or form or image but the nature of a created being. If God came to earth and merely appeared as a man, it means there was no actual sacrifice unto death, only the temporary stopping of expression. It totally destroys what Jesus did for...

Thank you. We are not called to be teachers either as Aunty Jane supposes. We are called to action, to sharpen iron as Proverbs 27:17 says; to be disciple makers, to love god and others. This is the ends. The means may include us being students for time, to be teachers for a time. But the means...

You so love your Strawman arguments.

Sure it is! When the subject is action, waxing philosophical sure is an impediment. When my wife wants me to put the trash out or do anything of the NOW variety, I'll tell her I be learning stuff. I'm sure she will not deem my knowedge an impediment. :D

The teaching is merely to obey the will of God, that Jesus ended with making disciples. The teaching is not to achieve an army of theoreticians and academic pedants. And for some reason, you are equating 'teaching' with showing off your knowledge.

Another Appeal to Strawman. Thus proving again your idol is knowledge. You cannot simply agree with the statement that the goal of Christianity is NOT to be a Bible student.

Oy vey! I'm not going to answer tit for tat your defense mechanisms to defend your idol of knowledge. Implied in this statement is you are the keeper of deeper knowledge than me. Pride this is. Your preference to show off your knowledge may be a JW failing to not meet people where they are...

Appeal to Strawman. I knew there was a risk that rather than accepting correction, you'd challenge every point. No one said only JW's Aunty Jane has an idea of what Jesus said. The 'how' has been explained to you many times. You just don't have ears to hear. The trinity consists of the Father...

No it is not! An image is an image, NOT the thing it is an image of.

Right see the difference in ambiguity Between the first and second sentence?

As if being an image bearer makes us all God.

My drivers license is the express image of me. My drivers license image is not me.

There is not one single verse in Scripture that says this Pagan idea. I would get my wife a cup of coffee, Jesus would raise himself is not the same thing as I actually did get my wife a cup of coffee or Jesus actually did raise himself from the dead.